← Back to home

Document 18-cr-0490

AI Analysis

Summary: This court filing discusses the factors considered in determining a defendant's pretrial detention, the rules of evidence at bail hearings, and the presumption of remand in cases involving sexual victimization of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 1591. It references relevant case law and statutory provisions, including 18 U.S.C. § 3142. The document is related to the case against Mr. Epstein.
Significance: This document is potentially important as it discusses the legal standards and procedures for determining pretrial detention, particularly in cases involving serious crimes like sexual victimization of a minor. It highlights the presumption of remand in such cases and the burden on the defendant to rebut this presumption.
Key Topics: Pretrial detention Bail hearing procedures Presumption of remand in cases involving sexual victimization of a minor
Key People:
  • Mr. Epstein - Defendant in the case
Document Type
Court Filing
Date
July 18, 2019
Pages
1
Folder
IMAGES001

Full Text

Case 18-cr-0490 Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 9 of 33 defendant's release. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). "The weight afforded to each factor under section 3142(g) is within the 'special province' of the district court." United States v. Paulino, 335 F. Supp. 3d 600, 610 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting United States v. Shakur, 817 F.2d 189, 196 (2d Cir. 1987)). "The rules concerning admissibility of evidence in criminal trials do not apply to the presentation and consideration of information at the [release/remand] hearing." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2) (emphasis added). For example, the Government is entitled to present evidence supporting remand by way of proffer, among other means. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2); see also United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 131 (2d Cir. 2000) ("bail hearings are typically informal affairs, not substitutes for trial or even for discovery"). 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(B) expressly states that the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply at bail hearings; thus, courts often base detention decisions on hearsay evidence. United States v. Abuhamra, 389 F.3d 309, 321 n.7 (2d Cir. 2004) "District courts [are afforded] wide discretion regarding the scope of such hearings . . ." United States v. Bartok, 472 F. App'x 25, 27 (2d Cir. 2012). E. The Presumption of Remand in 18 U.S.C. § 1591 Cases A 18 U.S.C. § 1591 case involving sexual victimization of a minor is unusual in that it includes a presumption in favor of pretrial detention, reflecting the significant harm caused by such a crime. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E). The presumption is that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure against flight or danger to the community. United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E)). Mr. Epstein may rebut the presumption by "coming forward with evidence that he does not pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight." United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001). The Government retains the "ultimate burden of persuasion" that Mr. Epstein presents a danger to the